Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Variance Appeal: Vermillion State Bank, 10540 Canada AvenueCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: September 5, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Variance Appeal: Vermillion State Bank AGENDA SECTION: 15040 Canada Avenue Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA , ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appeal, Site illustration, P.C. Minutes APPROVED BY: (7- 25 -00), Staff summary, Reasons for request, Required Findings Applicant & Property Owner: Location: Area in Acres: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: Nature of request: Board of Appeals & Adj. Action: i V Kevin Pedelty of Vermillion State Bank 15040 Canada Ave. (former Tom Thumb) 0.78 acres (two parcels) Commercial C -4, General Commercial Setback variances for driveways on three sides: Front Yard @ CSAH 42 10'requested/ 20' required Side Yard @ east side 0' requested/ 10' required Rear Yard @ south side 4' requested/ 10' required Denial (4 -0). SUMMARY Mr. Pedelty of the Vermillion State Bank has decided to appeal the Board of Appeals & Adjustments denial of the variance request. As previously stated, staff is concerned about the relative location of the building on the property. Even with the setback variances, staff is concerned about the limitations of the space available in addition to the aesthetic considerations. If the Council is inclined to overturn the Board of Appeals & Adjustments denial, then Staff recommends: L The two parcels be combined into one lot (it should be platted as one lot) to eliminate the property line that currently bisects the building. 2. A snow- storage easement should be acquired from the neighboring property owner. This means that the fence should be moved ten feet east and turf established in the storage area. Otherwise, snow would have to be removed from this portion of the site. 3. The parking lot should be redesigned to shift the drive through exit lane away from the maneuvering/parking lane in front of the building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. - or— Motion to overturn the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and grant the variance subject to the above mentioned three items and any others that the Council may require. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: fiERMMUON ISANK 107 East Main Street - PO Box 28 - Vermillion, MN 55085 Phone: 651-437-4433 Fax: 651-437-1842 - - -- Member FDIC - - -- August 3, 2000 City Council of Rosemount P.O. Box 510 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 To whom it may concern: On July 25th 2000, Kevin Pedelty, on behalf of Vermillion State Bank, appeared before the Rosemount Planning Commission to request a variance for setbacks to the property located at 15040 Canada Avenue. With all due respect, Vermillion Bank wishes to appeal the decision to the City Council. Please be kind enough to review the information presented to the Plan Commission and provide us with any guidance which might assist us in accomplishing our goals of strengthening our community involvement with the City of Rosemount. Vermillion Bank is anxious to make a significant investment in improving a currently vacant and highly visible property. In discussions with neighbors, I've received nothing but positive feedback for this project. Thank you for your consideration. If any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (651) 437 - 4433. Very truly yours, Kevin Pedelty Vice President 975 Lyn way Hastings, MN 55033 Phone: 651437 -8288 Fax: 651 -438 -2874 255 West 33rd. Hastings, MN 55033 Phone: 651 -437 -7775 Fax: 651 -437 -8455 2975 80th St. East Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 Phone: 651- 455 -9596 Fax: 651 -455 -9549 3410 15 1 st. St. West Rosemount, MN 55068 Phone: 651-423-4303 Fax: 651 -423 -9213 . r 1 CANADA AVENUE IF 1. �' •'fir. _ 1 ---------- W VEf" STATE BANK //M n,a�a�c►ettm p 1. ... l Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 6 MOT by Droste to continue the public hearing o TJ Limited Partnership (Cub Foods) Plana Unit Development Amendment Final Plat to August 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. Seconded b oe- Corrigan. Ayes: eisensel, Napper, Droste, and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Mo carried. Chairperson Droste recess a me ' g for five minutes. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. Chairperso oste recessed the regular Planning Co 'ssion meeting and convened the B Appeals & Adjustments. Public Hearing: Vermillion State Bank— Variance to Setbacks Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Vermillion State Bank for a variance to setback requirements. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Mr. Pearson indicated that Vermillion State Bank wishes to relocate to the former Tom Thumb site. The bank has requested a variance to setbacks for three sides of the building in order to construct a drive- through lane. Mr. Pearson summarized the setback encroachments and possible resolutions. Lack of snow storage space and traffic circulation present concerns. Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the applicant. Kevin Pedelty appeared on behalf of the Vermillion State Bank. Mr. Pedelty summarized improvements planned for the site. He indicated that approximately 70% of the bank's business is drive - through. The variance on the south side is not required as initially anticipated. Snow storage would not be a problem because the bank has the snow hauled away. Commissioners discussed the possibility of a drive- through lane in the front of the building. Stacking problems and the turning radius presented unsafe conditions. Mr. Pedelty indicated the option of constructing a new building on the site was cost prohibitive. Mr. Pearson explained that at the time the building was constructed, the parcel was never combined, resulting in a property line which bisects the building. This would have to be corrected if a variance is granted. Commissioner Napper indicated he would rather see a bank in this location. Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the public. There were no comments. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 25, 2000 Page 7 MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Napper. Ayes: Napper, Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, and Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carved. MOTION by Weisensel to deny the variance because of an inability to meet the findings specified by Section 14.2G of the zoning ordinance. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel, and Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Chairperson Droste closed the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon MOTION by Droste and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dianne G. Quinnell Recording Secretary CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION Board of Appeals & Adjustments Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Vermillion State Bank — Variance to setbacks AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan Reduction; Reason for request; APPROVED BY: Required findings Applicant &Property Owner: Location: Area in Acres: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: Nature of Request: Vermillion State Bank 15040 Canada Avenue (former Tom Thumb site) 0.78 acres (two parcels) Commercial C -4, General Commercial Setback variances for driveways on three sides: Front Yard @ CSAH 42 10' / 20' required Side Yard @ east side 0' / 10' required Rear Yard @ south side 4' / 10' required SUMMARY The Vermillion State Bank has requested a variance to setbacks for three sides of the old Tom Thumb building in order to construct a drive- through lane that would encircle the building. Staff is concerned that the request is excessive, even though the variance concept is supported as a tool for redevelopment of a long — abandoned site. Primarily, the setback along the east side next to Carlson Tractor is "zero -lot". That means that there is no snow storage space, to say nothing of green space, landscaping or drainage. The petitioner states that the Carlson site is allowed to have fences and equipment up to the lot line. This is true to a point. The Carlson site is non- conforming, and would certainly conform to current standards upon redevelopment. Staff is aware of the applicant's attempts to design a drive - through in the center of the parking lot, and has studied the challenge in some detail. If the Planning Commission is inclined to grant a variance, staff would suggest that a snow - storage easement be negotiated with the Carlson', with a minimum depth of ten feet (equal to the standard side setback on the Carlson property). In addition, the building actually straddles a property line, indicating land previously purchased to expand the site, but never combined with the westerly parcel. This should be corrected, in any event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to deny the variance because of an inability to meet the findings specified by Section 14.2 G of the zoning ordinance. BOARD OF APPEALS & ADJUSTMENTS ACTION: EXHIBIT A REASON FOR REQUEST Vermillion Bank purchased the property at 15040 Canada Avenue intending to convert the facility into a Bank location. Visibility is a critical component in building a new bank business. We believe that the subject property will help us to achieve this visibility and enable the bank to bring competitive products to the community of Rosemount delivered with superior service. The property will put us on an equal footing with the competing financial service facilities in Rosemount. Without granting of the variance, it would not be possible to use this property for a bank. It is estimated that 75% of bank visits today are made to a drive- through facility. If the variance is not granted, this facility will not be able to allow for drive- through visits. Our architect, Jim Grover of HTG, Ltd., has attempted several layouts with the traffic circling around or through the existing parking lot (extended to its maximum boundaries ten feet forward). Each layout was deficient in allowing for an adequate turning ratio, stacking requirements for four (4) vehicles, sufficient green space and adequate parking. In addition, placing the drive- through facility in the front would endanger and discourage customers needing to conduct business inside the lobby. A significant and important segment of a bank's deposit base comes from senior citizens. These individuals would be particularly at risk if required to walk across the path of the drive- through traffic lanes to reach the bank. This layout would also result in great difficulty in clearing snow from the lot or access to the property by emergency personnel and equipment. Ron Carlson of Carlson Tractor and Equipment owns the neighboring property directly to the East of the property. I have discussed the possible purchase of a strip of land adjacent to the property, however, at this point they are concerned about their future development plans. Ron indicated that he did not object to the granting of this variance. Similarly, conversations with Alan Hopeman indicated that the school district property to the south is facing a shortage of parking within its fenced boundaries and could not sell or lease space to the Bank. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood In speaking with the adjoining neighbors, neither expressed any concern as to the impact on their property or use of their facilities. Exterior improvements to the building required in order to change the facility to a bank will have a positive impact on property values and neighborhood improvements. The existing improvements on the subject property are in disrepair and somewhat unsightly. The bank will want to upgrade the image significantly, providing much better curb appeal and increasing the tax values (and tax revenue base) in the area. The addition of the drive- through lane around the bank will also provide emergency equipment access to the property and its neighbor that would not otherwise be available. The bank would bare the cost of any changes required to neighboring fences to assure safety to employees, customers and company assets. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan Vermillion Bank has made a substantial investment in this property. The current improvements, although needing aesthetic upgrades, is built with steel beam construction covering a 4,000 square foot foundation footprint. The amount paid for the property cannot be financially justified without the use of this building. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district The property is adjoined by property to the East and South, each of which were allowed to build fences and park vehicles abutting to the property line. This property is on the comer, hemmed in by the to before mentioned properties, County road 42 and Canada Avenue. The bank would be at a serious competitive disadvantage if not allowed to add a drive- through access. Strict of literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of the property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district The city of Rosemount has two existing bank's each with drive- through facilities and similar visibility to the community. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district The property is identified as C -4 general business district. General banking with a drive - through facility is allowed under this zone. J i FINDINGS The Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the City Council, upon appeal, must find as follows in the granting of a variance from this ordinance: 1, Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district. 5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district in question.